git_commit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('commit'), but does not disclose whether the commit is reversible, what permissions are needed, what happens on failure, or what the commit includes beyond staged changes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no waste, but its extreme brevity leaves critical details unstated. It is efficient rather than well-structured for a mutation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and only a two-word description, much is missing. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but prerequisites, parameter meaning, and behavioral effects remain inadequately covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions neither the required 'message' parameter nor the optional 'repo' parameter. An agent gets no semantic guidance from the description about what these parameters mean or how to supply them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Commit staged changes.' It distinguishes the operation from staging tools like git_add by specifying that only already-staged changes are committed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies that the tool is used after staging changes, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as needing a repository or a prior git_add call, and no alternatives for related workflows.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.